The Portland daily press., 1887-12-13
SUPERIOR COURT.
pEroRE JUDGE RoNNEY.
rownsllend.

MoNDAY.-William N. Brockway VS.. The Rum
ford Falls & Buckfeid Railroad Company. Ac-
lion of troTer % 70 recover S9o tae value 2, tw1
Of Buckfeld, in Boston, and sold him the two
wagons IN question. The agent says that Russell
told him be owned a farm of 200 acres in Buck
field, or that he lived upon farm of 200 acres,h
Is not sure which expression was used but that he
represented himself to be good for the pay: The
wagons were shipped by the plaintiff from Homer,
N. Y, to Buckheld, via of the defendant road Be-
fore their arrival, however, the plaintiff heard
that Russell was not responsible financially, and
wrote the station agent at Buckfeld not to deliver
the wagons unless Russell paid for them, and the
agent replied by letter that Russell was not re-
sponsbe financially, and that he would hold the
wagons. Russell, however, demanded the wagons
and upon the agents refusal to deliver them to
him, he repleyied them, giving the company
bond TO hold them blameess from all costs aris-
ing therefrOm,
All the testimony in the case-the defendants
put in none-as to the financial standing of Rus
sell. was the plaintiffs agent said he had heard
that he was not good, and the letter from the sta
ton agent at Buckfeld.
Judge B0nney instructed the Jury that when
vender, who has sent goods by common carrier,
or otherwise. to a purchaser at distance. ascer-
tains that the purchaser is insolvent, believes
him to be on the verge of insolvency, which
means an inability TO pay his debts in the ordina
ry course of business and insolvency, as matter
OF fact exists or occurs, he may stop the goods at
any time before they reach the purchaser.
It's not enough that the seller at the time of
issuing the order to the common carrier should
believe the purchaser is inselvent or In embar-
rassed circumstances; he has no right to hold the
goods unless the purchaser is insolyent as matter
Of fact, becomes prior to the delivery of the
goods to the purchaser.
So, in this case, 1t is not only incumbent on this
plaintiff to show that at the time he issued the or
der to the defend ant companyh he apprehended in
solvency on the part OF the purchaser, Russell,
but he must show by competent evidence that
Russell was in fact insOvent, or before the delv-
cry Of the wagons became so. No legal evidence
has been offered in this case which would author
lie jury TO IND that the purchaser, Russell was
insolvent, or even that he was in embarrassed
circumstances. The plaintiff, therefore, on the
testimony offered. has no right to recover this
branch OF the case
But the plaintiff claims that he was induced to
make the contract on account of the fraudulent
representations of Russell as to his property and
financial condition. He says that Russell stated
TO him either that he owned a farm OF 200 acres
In the town OF Buckfeld or was living upon one,
which statement was made. Now in order for the
Jury 10 find that this was void contract on the
ground of fraudulent representations the plaintiff
must not only show that he relied upon the state
ments made in parting with his property but that
the statements made were false No legal testi-
mony has been offered to show either that Russell
did not own farm of 200 acres or did not live
upon farm of 200 acres in the town of Buckfeld.
The plaintiff therefore has failed to establish his
claim TO the goods In question upon this branch Of
the case and therefore instruct you that the
plaintiff has not sustained the burden resting upon
him upon either OF these positions and the verdict
should be for the defendant. Verdict for the de-
fendant and plaintiff filed exception.
Geo. c. Wing for plaintiff.
o. III. Hersey for defendant